BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

[dev]

What gets me is people knew trump was "wishy washy" on guns before the last election, now hes shown that hes only "pro gun" enough to get reelected. This time there will be nothing stopping him from "compromising " on some gun laws, he'll go for broke this term yea well gain a seat on the supreme court that refuses to hear gun cases and will never over turn further infringements that will get passed. Voting lessor of 2 evils is getting us nowhere. Its passed time to tar and feather some motherfuckers. In the end voting for evil gets you more of the same and barely delays the inevitable.

I wouldn’t say nowhere. Sometimes building a good defense is needed when you don’t have an offense. Straight up we have not had the offense we need in the house and senate to push for pro 2nd legislation. But we have been able to build up our defense which is making all the difference in the world.

I’m not sure what some people want Trump to do to increase gun rights. He does not make laws. He needs both a pro 2nd House and a filibuster proof pro 2nd Senate to get any pro 2nd legislation moving. He has not had this at any time in his Presidency. The president does carry a great deal of influence in pushing for laws but that is it. No presidential influence is going to overcome a Senate that is not filibuster proof when it comes to the 2nd. Do people expect him to say “we are going to have National Constitutional Carry” and it will be done by his decree? Maybe that would fly in a dictatorship but we live in America.

Voting for Trump has gotten us somewhere. After Parkland, Vegas and other mass shootings we did not have a president using their influence to push the legislature to come up with massive gun control. Hillary absolutely would have been doing this. Honestly this is where having a Republican controlled Senate benefits us...... assuming they did not cave to pressure. We did not get a repeat of 2013 after Sandy hook with the Toomey-Manchin bill. This is because of the President who we voted for in 2016.

Go take a look at Emptymags deals thread. Look at the price/availability of guns and ammo in the years after Sandy Hook. Then look at the price of guns/ammo after Parkland and Vegas. There is a world of difference....... and that difference is because of who sits in the Whitehouse.

Don’t underestimate the influence of being able to replace Scalia, Kennedy and hopefully Ginsberg. It comes across like you don’t think this is a big deal because they have not done much with guns yet. But you also have to look at it from the angle of if enough people had wasted their votes in 2016 there is a good possibility that the court would now be taking gun cases that would not benefit the 2nd because Hillary replaced Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsberg.

Aiding a greater evil power like a Bloomberg to get in office by supporting a 3rd party candidate does not help the 2nd in any way what so ever. You speculate that there is nothing to keep him from compromising on some gun laws. It is a possibility but it is still conjecture at this point.

What is not conjecture is that any of the current democratic candidates WILL push for major gun control. Helping put the influence of the most powerful position in the country in the hands of a greater evil like a Bloomberg is not a strategy that helps the 2nd in anyway what so ever.

The next president will get to replace Ginsberg. But there is nothing that says a Gorsuch doesn’t accidentally choke on a piece of steak or has some unknown genetic anomaly that will give the next president 2 or more positions to fill.

Those of us who support Trump are not blind to his potential downside. But we do see the damage not having Trump win will most likely result in.

[GunLawyer001]

. . . Voting lessor of 2 evils is getting us nowhere. Its passed time to tar and feather some motherfuckers. In the end voting for evil gets you more of the same and barely delays the inevitable.

In life and politics, your choices are limited to what's real, not "what would be cool".

Maybe the straight-line from your home to your work is only a mile, but there's a bay, and you have to drive 20 miles around it to get to work. So you can either choose to drive the 20 miles, or get a different job, or work to build a bridge. You can't choose to "levitate your car across the bay".

I get up and do lawyering. My first choice might be "pool boy for a nymphomaniacal lingerie model", but that hasn't been a real option lately.

Same in elections. There are European countries where they have 10 parties and every one of them has some chance, and they cobble together ruling coalitions, and they break apart at the darndest times. That's not what we do here, it's winner-take-all for the presidency, and nobody here was alive the last time a 3rd party candidate won. Although most of us were around when 3rd party candidates fucked over the candidate who the most people agreed with. Nader spoiled it for Gore, Perot spoiled it for Bush I and for Dole.

So you can choose the lesser of 2 evils, or you can manage to help bring about the worse of the 2 evils. Which is better?

[Berncly]

I get up and do lawyering. My first choice might be "pool boy for a nymphomaniacal lingerie model", but that hasn't been a real option lately.

I had no idea that was ever an option...

[knight0334]

In life and politics, your choices are limited to what's real, not "what would be cool".

Maybe the straight-line from your home to your work is only a mile, but there's a bay, and you have to drive 20 miles around it to get to work. So you can either choose to drive the 20 miles, or get a different job, or work to build a bridge. You can't choose to "levitate your car across the bay".

I get up and do lawyering. My first choice might be "pool boy for a nymphomaniacal lingerie model", but that hasn't been a real option lately.

Same in elections. There are European countries where they have 10 parties and every one of them has some chance, and they cobble together ruling coalitions, and they break apart at the darndest times. That's not what we do here, it's winner-take-all for the presidency, and nobody here was alive the last time a 3rd party candidate won. Although most of us were around when 3rd party candidates fucked over the candidate who the most people agreed with. Nader spoiled it for Gore, Perot spoiled it for Bush I and for Dole.

So you can choose the lesser of 2 evils, or you can manage to help bring about the worse of the 2 evils. Which is better?

Under present conditions:

A vote for Libertarian/Constitutional Party is a vote for Democrats because it usually takes a vote from Republicans.

A vote for Green/Socialist Party is a vote for Republicans because it usually takes a vote from a Democrat.

[ExFlyinguy]

I had no idea that was ever an option...

I gave it a go, but the boss decided she like the Maytag repairman better

[USMC3531]

In life and politics, your choices are limited to what's real, not "what would be cool".

Maybe the straight-line from your home to your work is only a mile, but there's a bay, and you have to drive 20 miles around it to get to work. So you can either choose to drive the 20 miles, or get a different job, or work to build a bridge. You can't choose to "levitate your car across the bay"

So you can choose the lesser of 2 evils, or you can manage to help bring about the worse of the 2 evils. Which is better?

Again I'm taking plan c and getting a boat and rowing across the bay.

[USMC3531]

I wouldn’t say nowhere. Sometimes building a good defense is needed when you don’t have an offense. Straight up we have not had the offense we need in the house and senate to push for pro 2nd legislation. But we have been able to build up our defense which is making all the difference in the world.

I’m not sure what some people want Trump to do to increase gun rights. He does not make laws. He needs both a pro 2nd House and a filibuster proof pro 2nd Senate to get any pro 2nd legislation moving. He has not had this at any time in his Presidency. The president does carry a great deal of influence in pushing for laws but that is it. No presidential influence is going to overcome a Senate that is not filibuster proof when it comes to the 2nd. Do people expect him to say “we are going to have National Constitutional Carry” and it will be done by his decree? Maybe that would fly in a dictatorship but we live in America.

Voting for Trump has gotten us somewhere. After Parkland, Vegas and other mass shootings we did not have a president using their influence to push the legislature to come up with massive gun control. Hillary absolutely would have been doing this. Honestly this is where having a Republican controlled Senate benefits us...... assuming they did not cave to pressure. We did not get a repeat of 2013 after Sandy hook with the Toomey-Manchin bill. This is because of the President who we voted for in 2016.

Go take a look at Emptymags deals thread. Look at the price/availability of guns and ammo in the years after Sandy Hook. Then look at the price of guns/ammo after Parkland and Vegas. There is a world of difference....... and that difference is because of who sits in the Whitehouse.

Don’t underestimate the influence of being able to replace Scalia, Kennedy and hopefully Ginsberg. It comes across like you don’t think this is a big deal because they have not done much with guns yet. But you also have to look at it from the angle of if enough people had wasted their votes in 2016 there is a good possibility that the court would now be taking gun cases that would not benefit the 2nd because Hillary replaced Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsberg.

Aiding a greater evil power like a Bloomberg to get in office by supporting a 3rd party candidate does not help the 2nd in any way what so ever. You speculate that there is nothing to keep him from compromising on some gun laws. It is a possibility but it is still conjecture at this point.

What is not conjecture is that any of the current democratic candidates WILL push for major gun control. Helping put the influence of the most powerful position in the country in the hands of a greater evil like a Bloomberg is not a strategy that helps the 2nd in anyway what so ever.

The next president will get to replace Ginsberg. But there is nothing that says a Gorsuch doesn’t accidentally choke on a piece of steak or has some unknown genetic anomaly that will give the next president 2 or more positions to fill.

Those of us who support Trump are not blind to his potential downside. But we do see the damage not having Trump win will most likely result in.

How about he reign in the atf with their bs rule making. Obama did it with the atf potential ban on m855 ammo. We could gain alot without law changes. Get rid of the gun sanctions on Russia and china, end the bs "armor piercing" rifle ammo ban etc. Among others

[fallenleader]

In life and politics, your choices are limited to what's real, not "what would be cool".

Maybe the straight-line from your home to your work is only a mile, but there's a bay, and you have to drive 20 miles around it to get to work. So you can either choose to drive the 20 miles, or get a different job, or work to build a bridge. You can't choose to "levitate your car across the bay".

I get up and do lawyering. My first choice might be "pool boy for a nymphomaniacal lingerie model", but that hasn't been a real option lately.

Same in elections. There are European countries where they have 10 parties and every one of them has some chance, and they cobble together ruling coalitions, and they break apart at the darndest times. That's not what we do here, it's winner-take-all for the presidency, and nobody here was alive the last time a 3rd party candidate won. Although most of us were around when 3rd party candidates fucked over the candidate who the most people agreed with. Nader spoiled it for Gore, Perot spoiled it for Bush I and for Dole.

So you can choose the lesser of 2 evils, or you can manage to help bring about the worse of the 2 evils. Which is better?

government of the people by the people for the people. there is always the option for one to actually run themselves.
start local by eliminating the "lesser of two evils" choices and maybe the tide will eventually turn.

Again I'm taking plan c and getting a boat and rowing across the bay.

what if the bulk of the mile is on the far side? you walking that to work every day in any weather or is your boat a ferry?
i would just get the weird 6 wheel floating ATV thing, it's only a mile. to hell with local road laws.

[buxbandit]

I apologize to genuine morons, however only a moron would vote for someone other then Trump in 2020.
Perfect no, that guy died. Better then any other candidate with a legitimate chance?
Absofuckinglutely.

[Bang]

And MILLIONS....MILLIONS....will vote Democrat because them damned Republicans have GOT TO BE STOPPED. Especially that dictator Trump. (My podiatrist calls him a dictator. So much for education).